Artica German Shepherds

[Lakl]

Originally Posted by Jax08

Lakl - I was just showing off my stellar reading comprehension! Do I get a gold star?! lol

Lol. 2 Gold Stars!!

[lmlloyd]

Originally Posted by Andaka

Such as??? What breed would you introduce and to fix what problem?

I am not proposing any specific remedy to any specific problem, nor do I breed dogs, nor am I announcing some new breeding program I'm starting. I am just saying that in all species of animals, the most proven effective way to reduce genetic expressions of defects, is to introduce diversity. It has worked with endangered birds. It has worked with crops. It has worked with livestock. It has worked at fisheries. I see no rational reason to believe that dogs have uniquely different DNA, that would cause them to need to be bred in some entirely different way, than every other form of life on the planet.

[lmlloyd]

Originally Posted by Lakl

It's ok, Michelle. If he didn't see that that was honest attempt to delve further into the topic by involving those that actively breed and are more knowledgeable on the genetics of these dogs, then it's gonna be a waste of time to try and sway his viewpoint that this breed is a lost cause.

Please, I have now been told repeatedly that my views are "rude," "insulting" and "offensive," to breeders. Then you say "hey, why don't you move this conversation over to where more breeders will see it?"

So, I have to ask, is your intention to:

A: Make sure that as many breeders as possible are offended by my rude insults.

or

B: Get me to move the conversation over to a venue where you know more people will jump down my throat, since you haven't been getting the result you would like from telling me that I can't know anything, because I don't agree with you.

Either way, I don't see how I benefit from continuing a conversation that has thus far been typified by a continual reiteration that only a dog breeder can understand what a valuable art dog breeding is, and genetics only matter as a breeders says they matter, so I should just shut up and stop saying insulting things.

[Jax08]

I'll answer for Lakl...she has never shown sneaky, underhanded, tendencies so in my opinion, she was trying to learn more and have more opinions viewpoints in what is a very interesting topic. I'm sure she was thinking of Carmen and Cliff specifically, who both could add very well thought out, intelligent, information that YOU would benefit from.

[Freestep]

Originally Posted by lmlloyd

Honestly, I think the whole genetics thing has run its course. I get it, breeders know more about how to get the most out of a pairing that geneticists do, and if anything goes wrong, it is probably the fault of the person who bought the dog, because breeders are infallible. To say anything else is rude, and if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

That's ludicrous. This forum has a "no breeder bashing" rule (which I don't agree with, but whatever) because if it didn't, you'd see a LOT more posts decrying bad breeding practices. There are a LOT of unethical breeders out there; unfortunately, ethical breeders are in the minority. So no, breeders are not infallible. Even the good ones are not infallible, and no one is saying otherwise.

I'm beginning to think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and you're simply trying to get peoples' dander up. In other words, a troll. The suggestion to move this conversation to its own thread was made out of a desire to get more people in on the conversation; the original thread title does not let everyone know how the thread has drifted. That's all. To make some malicious intent out of it is ridiculous.

[wolfstraum]

food for thought: dogs are living creatures with feelings, and long life spans. Not grain or food animals - where failed genetic experiments can be destroyed much more easily...what happens to all those pups born of genetic experiments???? Breeding dogs is as much an art as a science. I do feel, or maybe agree is a better word, too many people with too little knowledge, and just downright careless people, produce the majority of dogs and cats born and euthanized in this country, and it is APPALLING and heartbreaking. But breeding solely for genetic diversity by mixing breeds is not the answer - it would just make more mutts with no homes.

Lee

[lmlloyd]

Originally Posted by Jax08

I'll answer for Lakl...she has never shown sneaky, underhanded, tendencies so in my opinion, she was trying to learn more and have more opinions viewpoints in what is a very interesting topic. I'm sure she was thinking of Carmen and Cliff specifically, who both could add very well thought out, intelligent, information that YOU would benefit from.

The problem with that, is that I really have heard it all before. It's not like I've never spoken to a breeder before. It's not like I don't know what their position is. I even read a good portion of the thread it was recommended I read, though it seems to be unbelievable to Lakl that anyone could read that thread, and still have their own opinion that differs.

Arguing with a breeder about the basic concept of breed purity, is like trying to get a Christian to renounce Christ, and convert to Judaism. Their entire world view is centered around the idea that breed purity is a desirable trait. All that will happen, is you will end up mired in the minutia of dogma. It doesn't go anywhere, and no one learns anything, because when it really comes down to it, it is a faith-based position, leaning on tradition, and adopting the parts of modern science that support their world view, while rejecting, ignoring, or being impossibly hyper-critical of anything that causes problems with their world view.

There are entire websites devoted to this argument, and there are many scholarly papers by both geneticists and breeders addressing the subject. There is nothing any breeder in any forum can say, to get around the simple scientific evidence that biodiversity is advantageous to a species. Any argument that tries to support improving the health of a species, by limiting biodiversity, will necessarily include rationalizations and a priori assumptions that have to be taken on faith. That isn't some random opinion I just happen to have, that is the current state of a modern understanding of genetics. If you maintain a small gene pool, and practice selective breeding only within that limited gene pool, you are practicing damage control, not improving the species. That is what genetics has to say about a lack of biodiversity.

Arguing with breeders about breed purity, is no more productive or beneficial to me, than it would be to go to some audiophile website, and argue about $10,000 stereo cables that supposedly improve sound, or some free energy website to argue about perpetual motion machines, or any other group of people who earnestly and wholeheartedly believe in something that is scientifically questionable, to the point of being highly unlikely to be true. I don't have to hear someone's subjective arguments, to look over the research, see the experiments, and read the results. That, to me, speaks a lot louder than someone's passionate defense that they love their dogs, and have been doing this for 30 years, with what they self-assess as good results.

What is a worthwhile conversation, and all I was doing initially, is to talk to the person who isn't sure if they should buy that $10,000 audio cable, and let them know that there is no scientific basis for a special cable making something sound better. Talking to the people who already bought the cable, is a waste of time, because their $10,000 investment, will cause them to skew their perspective.

[lmlloyd]

Originally Posted by Freestep

That's ludicrous. This forum has a "no breeder bashing" rule (which I don't agree with, but whatever) because if it didn't, you'd see a LOT more posts decrying bad breeding practices. There are a LOT of unethical breeders out there; unfortunately, ethical breeders are in the minority. So no, breeders are not infallible. Even the good ones are not infallible, and no one is saying otherwise.

I'm beginning to think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and you're simply trying to get peoples' dander up. In other words, a troll. The suggestion to move this conversation to its own thread was made out of a desire to get more people in on the conversation; the original thread title does not let everyone know how the thread has drifted. That's all. To make some malicious intent out of it is ridiculous.

Ah yes, the troll card.

Oh look, I don't like what he is saying, he must be a troll. I'm amazed it has taken this long for someone to decide that is the best way to deal with a dissenting opinion.

Excuse me, but the overwhelming majority of comments before I posted my one response, were people arguing specifically that no dog should be bred without a pedigree, and some people saying that further than that, a dog should only be bred if there is a specific plan for how it improves the species. How is ANYTHING, I've said, not part of that topic?

[Chris Wild]

There are some excellent points of discussion here, but I think it's time to close this one particular thread. Partly because it is a revival of a year old thread and the current discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the original thread or the title. And partly because people are having some trouble playing nice.

I do think this would make an interesting discussion in the genetics forum, as a separate thread with an accurate heading. If people would like to continue to discuss the topic, and can do so in a civil manner, then please start a new thread.

-Admin